Broke! Fixing America's fiscal crisis in lieu of defense spending
UNCENSORED NEWS | July 19, 2010 at 11:29 amby
240 views | 4 Recommendations | 1 comment
In 2006, the United States required a military defense budget of approximately $553.5 billion dollars. Over the past four years that number has progressively risen but, not without necessity and not disparaging common sense. The gain in debt over military spending is not at all exorbitant and in analysis shows that each administration, the Republican under President George W. Bush and the Democratic administration under President Barack H. Obama have both maintained relatively the same expenses and the same goals for our country.
In April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, announced his recommendations to the public with respect to fiscal year 2010 defense budget. “In many ways, my recommendations represent the cumulative outcome of a lifetime spent in the national security arena and, above all, questions asked, experience gained, and lessons learned from over two years of leading this department – and, in particular, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. I reached the final decisions after many hours of consultations with the military and civilian leadership of the department. I have also consulted closely with the president.“
Clearly, pragmatically speaking, Robert M. Gates has kept a cool and concise thinking about our economy and what needs to be done in order to ensure the safety of the American people. Threats from other countries, Al-Qaeda and radical militia hasten the recovery of funds to strengthen our military forces used to exact strategic performance on behalf of the American system of government and the freedom our “land of opportunity” possesses.
Although, we have elected a President to lead the military as Commander in Chief, most of the decisions happen between many government officials before the President ever becomes involved. Financial decisions require economic harvesting and budget balancers which include Certified Public Accountants and many other financial economists in collaboration with one another to satisfactorily create a project or a plan that will support and sustain the American defense system against all enemies. In 2010, the budget requires that $130 billion dollars be used to adequately support the war in Afghanistan and the conclusion of war in Iraq.
From 2006 to 2010 the difference in the amount of monies projected towards defense costs are approximately, $110 billion dollars. Considering the cause for expenses and the total big picture surrounding the efforts to establish democracies and stabilization of foreign governments who place a risk and threat to the United States, the amount has increased at approximately $28 billion dollars per year. How much spending is too much spending? And why should one aspect of our defense budget be supplemented as opposed to another?
These are questions much better answered by the spokesman for our country, President Barack H. Obama. But, without objective review and ordinary evaluation most people will continue to judge his Democratic administration against the former Bush’s administration. What is evident is that much of the same decisions have continued throughout Obama’s presidency. That is to say, President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for the decisions points he made during his two terms as president before anyone carefully stood back and weighted the option.
Now, with Obama running these policies and accepting the recommendations of his administrative co-workers, the people of the U.S. may adequately revise their former opinions and start to conform to the realization that no matter what administration is in office, the same process of praises and complaints will submerge any efforts accomplished by the current establishment. Will the American people ever regain their financial stability and drop their defense budget downward to change what we spend on the defense system as opposed to what we will spend in the future on our infrastructure, global climate rehabilitation, ocean and clean water renovations and overall standard of living increases for each and every resident in the U.S.?
Perhaps, with the next president and a much more common platform they should be working out plans to stabilize and enhance the overall asset worth of every American citizen by curtailing the profit margins of banks and the loan industry. There should be more money spent on the United States reinvestment plan to secure American families by lessening defense spending overseas and reinforcing the borders of the U.S. Maybe the ease of gaining entry onto the “land of opportunity” should be made harder for the foreign outsider and more benefits should be given to the American citizen who deserves the extra benefits and who should not be subjected to rerouting our country into separate sections filled with other cultures and different ways of practicing religion, different lifestyles and beliefs.
America should take back its country and become a more elite society specialized in mainta/ining the ethnic originality of the threatened sanctity of true American persons. America the Beautiful will be re-established and fortified by spending money on Americans living here on American soil. For all those anti-American foreigners living in our fair country who don’t want to rebuild our American legacy, they should go back to their country and take their religion, different lifestyles and beliefs back to the country where they came from and let us live free in a world that offers justice, freedom and the American dream to U.S. citizens.
How to get the federal budget back on the right track? Here are just two ideas from the co-chair of the president's bipartisan debt commission: Rein in tax breaks. Set hard caps on federal revenue and spending. Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the panel and White House chief of staff under former President Clinton, has twice in recent weeks mused in public about what he'd like to see in a debt-reduction plan. The commission has much work left, and Bowles only gets one vote. But if the commission can't agree on its own set of official recommendations, he is likely to play an influential role in shaping the advice given to President Obama.
These members have powered this story:
First Flagged at 3:58 PM, Jul 19, 2010 by Anonymous (not verified)